Feds to sue state over voting law

Published: Monday, September 30, 2013 at 12:51 p.m.

Last Modified: Monday, September 30, 2013 at 12:51 p.m.

The Justice Department announced in a news release Monday that it intends to sue the state of North Carolina, the State Board of Elections and the executive director for the State Board of Elections over recent voting changes made by the General Assembly-approved House Bill 589. Federal officials allege the new law violates the Voting Rights Act.

House Bill 589 was signed into law in August. The United States’ complaint challenges at least four provisions of the law, contending it was adopted “with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group,” according to the release.

"By restricting access and ease of voter participation, this new law would shrink, rather than expand, access to the franchise,” Holder said in the Justice Department’s release. “Allowing limits on voting rights that disproportionately exclude minority voters would be inconsistent with our ideals as a nation. Whenever warranted by the facts and the law, the department will not hesitate to use the tools and legal authorities at our disposal to fight against racial discrimination, to stand against disenfranchisement, and to safeguard the right of every eligible American to cast a ballot."

McCrory challenged their allegations with an email that pictured President Barack Obama showing his identification to vote in Illinois in the 2012 elections.

“I believe if showing a voter ID is good enough and fair enough for our own president in Illinois, then it’s good enough for the people in North Carolina,” McCrory said in his release.

Prejudicial?

The federal Justice Department claims, “House Bill 589 imposes a number of restrictions on voting that will deny or abridge the right of minority voters to participate in the political process. Over the years, voter participation rates in North Carolina have steadily increased as the state adopted election practices and procedures that made voting more accessible to more voters,” according to the Justice Department’s release. “In the November 2008 and November 2012 general elections, for example, African-American voters dramatically increased their participation rates and heavily relied on early voting in North Carolina. In the November 2008 and November 2012 general elections, about 71 percent of all African Americans who cast ballots in North Carolina during those elections voted during the early voting period.”

According to the office of U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), more than 2.5 million North Carolinians voted early and accounted for 56 percent of the total votes cast in the 2012 election.

McCrory contends the legislation puts the state “in the mainstream when it comes to voter access and ballot integrity.”

With the new law, his office said that North Carolina: will still be one of 32 states, along with the District of Columbia, to offer early voting; will be one of 34 states that requires or will require some form of voter ID; will be one of 37 states that do not allow same-day registration; will be one of 43 states and D.C. that does not allow underage voters to pre-register.

“I believe that North Carolina is in the mainstream on this issue and it’s the Justice Department that’s working in the fringes. This new law which I signed in August brings us in line with a majority of other states,” McCrory said in his release.

He also noted that if residents of North Carolina do not have an ID, the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles will begin offering free voter ID cards on January 1, 2014.

Limited

“Although the prior system encouraged expanded voter participation, the state legislature chose in 2013 to adopt numerous barriers to voting and to eliminate voter-friendly practices,” the Justice Department contends in its release. “Additionally, the state waited to adopt many of these changes until after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which held that certain jurisdictions, including 40 counties in North Carolina, were no longer required to obtain preclearance of voting changes prior to their implementation.”

According to the Justice Department’s complaint, House Bill 589 shrinks the number of days of early voting from 17 to 10; eliminates same-day voter registration during the early voting period; prohibits the counting of certain provisional ballots; and, fails to provide adequate safeguards for voters who lack the limited types of acceptable photo identification cards that will be required in future elections. The first three changes are scheduled to take effect in 2014 and the last change is set to take effect in 2016, according to the Department’s release.

“Based on the state’s own data, all four changes will have a discriminatory impact on minority voters, who disproportionately have relied on the first seven days of early voting, the same-day registration process and past practices regarding the counting of certain provisional ballots in order to participate in the elections process,” the release continued. “In addition, the State Board of Elections released a report earlier this year showing that African-Americans disproportionately lacked photo identification cards issued by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. Despite knowledge of this report, the legislature adopted a strict photo identification requirement that lacks the types of protections for voters without identification that are common in other states that require voter identification. Minority voters will disproportionately face obstacles and barriers to obtaining certain permitted photo identification cards that are now required to vote, and the State has failed to provide adequate protections to ensure that these voters will not be disenfranchised by the new law.”

Other elected officials in the state have argued that the voter ID law is needed as a check to prevent voter fraud.

“I’m very disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to challenge a law that includes provisions such as voter ID as is used in other states throughout our great country. This lawsuit will only result in costly legal bills and drawn out legal battles for both state and federal taxpayers,” McCrory said in his release. “Protecting the integrity of every vote is one of the most important duties I have as governor of this great state. And that is why I signed this common sense legislation into law.”

Feds to states: not so fast

According to USA Today, the Justice Department is pushing “to rein in new state laws after the Supreme Court earlier this year struck down a central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act… The high court in June struck down the map used to determine which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws, but it permitted the Justice Department to challenge laws after they were passed by individual states.”

According to the Justice Department, the complaint against N.C. asks the court to prohibit the state from enforcing the requirements, provided in the new law, and also requests that the state be subject to a new preclearance mandate under the Voting Rights Act.

If the federal court in this case finds that the state should be subject to preclearance, then North Carolina would be required to submit voting changes to the U.S. attorney general or to federal court for review before passing them on to its citizens.

It will be up to the attorney general or federal court to ensure the changes do not have a discriminatory effect or a prejudiced purpose.

“The right to vote is one of the sacred rights that we hold dear as a nation,” said Jocelyn Samuels, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in the release. “The Department of Justice will use all the tools it has available to ensure that each citizen can cast a ballot free from discrimination. North Carolina adopted these changes in a rushed process, despite evidence before the legislators that a number of these changes will harm minority voters.”

U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand of North Carolina, said that federal attorneys for all three of the state’s districts support the government’s action “to protect the rights of all eligible” voters “from discrimination.”

U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan “applauded” the Justice Department’s decision to challenge the Bill in a news release Monday, after urging Holder’s office to review the law in August. She said that the law “has been called the most restrictive in the country.”

“Now is not the time to be putting up barriers to the right to vote, and I applaud the Justice Department’s decision to challenge the new voter access restrictions in North Carolina that would, among other things, cut off a week of early voting and end same day registration,” Hagan said in her release. “We shouldn’t be giving everyday North Carolinians fewer opportunities to make their voices heard while we are giving corporations more opportunities to influence elections. Restricting access to this basic right is simply not in sync with our North Carolina values, and it goes against our state’s proud tradition of eliminating barriers to participation in the democratic process.”

<p>The Justice Department announced in a news release Monday that it intends to sue the state of North Carolina, the State Board of Elections and the executive director for the State Board of Elections over recent voting changes made by the General Assembly-approved House Bill 589. Federal officials allege the new law violates the Voting Rights Act.</p><p>Fighting back, Gov. Pat McCrory criticized Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to “challenge North Carolina's common sense voter-ID requirement, calling it a meritless federal overreach,” in a statement issued hours later.</p><p>House Bill 589 was signed into law in August. The United States' complaint challenges at least four provisions of the law, contending it was adopted “with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group,” according to the release.</p><p>"By restricting access and ease of voter participation, this new law would shrink, rather than expand, access to the franchise,” Holder said in the Justice Department's release. “Allowing limits on voting rights that disproportionately exclude minority voters would be inconsistent with our ideals as a nation. Whenever warranted by the facts and the law, the department will not hesitate to use the tools and legal authorities at our disposal to fight against racial discrimination, to stand against disenfranchisement, and to safeguard the right of every eligible American to cast a ballot."</p><p>McCrory challenged their allegations with an email that pictured President Barack Obama showing his identification to vote in Illinois in the 2012 elections.</p><p>“I believe if showing a voter ID is good enough and fair enough for our own president in Illinois, then it's good enough for the people in North Carolina,” McCrory said in his release. </p><p><b>Prejudicial?</b></p><p>The federal Justice Department claims, “House Bill 589 imposes a number of restrictions on voting that will deny or abridge the right of minority voters to participate in the political process. Over the years, voter participation rates in North Carolina have steadily increased as the state adopted election practices and procedures that made voting more accessible to more voters,” according to the Justice Department's release. “In the November 2008 and November 2012 general elections, for example, African-American voters dramatically increased their participation rates and heavily relied on early voting in North Carolina. In the November 2008 and November 2012 general elections, about 71 percent of all African Americans who cast ballots in North Carolina during those elections voted during the early voting period.”</p><p>According to the office of U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), more than 2.5 million North Carolinians voted early and accounted for 56 percent of the total votes cast in the 2012 election.</p><p>McCrory contends the legislation puts the state “in the mainstream when it comes to voter access and ballot integrity.”</p><p>With the new law, his office said that North Carolina: will still be one of 32 states, along with the District of Columbia, to offer early voting; will be one of 34 states that requires or will require some form of voter ID; will be one of 37 states that do not allow same-day registration; will be one of 43 states and D.C. that does not allow underage voters to pre-register.</p><p>“I believe that North Carolina is in the mainstream on this issue and it's the Justice Department that's working in the fringes. This new law which I signed in August brings us in line with a majority of other states,” McCrory said in his release.</p><p>He also noted that if residents of North Carolina do not have an ID, the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles will begin offering free voter ID cards on January 1, 2014.</p><p><b>Limited</b></p><p>“Although the prior system encouraged expanded voter participation, the state legislature chose in 2013 to adopt numerous barriers to voting and to eliminate voter-friendly practices,” the Justice Department contends in its release. “Additionally, the state waited to adopt many of these changes until after the Supreme Court's recent decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which held that certain jurisdictions, including 40 counties in North Carolina, were no longer required to obtain preclearance of voting changes prior to their implementation.”</p><p>According to the Justice Department's complaint, House Bill 589 shrinks the number of days of early voting from 17 to 10; eliminates same-day voter registration during the early voting period; prohibits the counting of certain provisional ballots; and, fails to provide adequate safeguards for voters who lack the limited types of acceptable photo identification cards that will be required in future elections. The first three changes are scheduled to take effect in 2014 and the last change is set to take effect in 2016, according to the Department's release.</p><p>“Based on the state's own data, all four changes will have a discriminatory impact on minority voters, who disproportionately have relied on the first seven days of early voting, the same-day registration process and past practices regarding the counting of certain provisional ballots in order to participate in the elections process,” the release continued. “In addition, the State Board of Elections released a report earlier this year showing that African-Americans disproportionately lacked photo identification cards issued by the state's Department of Motor Vehicles. Despite knowledge of this report, the legislature adopted a strict photo identification requirement that lacks the types of protections for voters without identification that are common in other states that require voter identification. Minority voters will disproportionately face obstacles and barriers to obtaining certain permitted photo identification cards that are now required to vote, and the State has failed to provide adequate protections to ensure that these voters will not be disenfranchised by the new law.”</p><p>Other elected officials in the state have argued that the voter ID law is needed as a check to prevent voter fraud.</p><p>“I'm very disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to challenge a law that includes provisions such as voter ID as is used in other states throughout our great country. This lawsuit will only result in costly legal bills and drawn out legal battles for both state and federal taxpayers,” McCrory said in his release. “Protecting the integrity of every vote is one of the most important duties I have as governor of this great state. And that is why I signed this common sense legislation into law.” </p><p><b>Feds to states: not so fast</b></p><p>According to USA Today, the Justice Department is pushing “to rein in new state laws after the Supreme Court earlier this year struck down a central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act… The high court in June struck down the map used to determine which states must get federal permission before they change their voting laws, but it permitted the Justice Department to challenge laws after they were passed by individual states.”</p><p>According to the Justice Department, the complaint against N.C. asks the court to prohibit the state from enforcing the requirements, provided in the new law, and also requests that the state be subject to a new preclearance mandate under the Voting Rights Act.</p><p>If the federal court in this case finds that the state should be subject to preclearance, then North Carolina would be required to submit voting changes to the U.S. attorney general or to federal court for review before passing them on to its citizens.</p><p>It will be up to the attorney general or federal court to ensure the changes do not have a discriminatory effect or a prejudiced purpose.</p><p>“The right to vote is one of the sacred rights that we hold dear as a nation,” said Jocelyn Samuels, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in the release. “The Department of Justice will use all the tools it has available to ensure that each citizen can cast a ballot free from discrimination. North Carolina adopted these changes in a rushed process, despite evidence before the legislators that a number of these changes will harm minority voters.”</p><p>U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand of North Carolina, said that federal attorneys for all three of the state's districts support the government's action “to protect the rights of all eligible” voters “from discrimination.”</p><p>U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan “applauded” the Justice Department's decision to challenge the Bill in a news release Monday, after urging Holder's office to review the law in August. She said that the law “has been called the most restrictive in the country.” </p><p>“Now is not the time to be putting up barriers to the right to vote, and I applaud the Justice Department's decision to challenge the new voter access restrictions in North Carolina that would, among other things, cut off a week of early voting and end same day registration,” Hagan said in her release. “We shouldn't be giving everyday North Carolinians fewer opportunities to make their voices heard while we are giving corporations more opportunities to influence elections. Restricting access to this basic right is simply not in sync with our North Carolina values, and it goes against our state's proud tradition of eliminating barriers to participation in the democratic process.”</p>